Thursday, October 01, 2009

Bevan "Windsock" Dufty for mayor?

Ken Garcia likes Bevan Dufty, more or less. After a riff on the proposed sanctuary law to be considered by the Board of Supervisors, Garcia hopes Dufty will vote against it:

I'm not trying to single out Dufty, who is a smart, knowledgeable and affable public servant and would, in this corner, be one of the better candidates for mayor...So by getting out of the blocks early, Dufty has run into his first important decision: whether to kow-tow to the so-called "progressives" pushing the explosive [sanctuary] legislation or rely on his moderate, common-sense roots. (SF Examiner, Sept. 29, 2009)

Dufty will be a "better" candidate for mayor only in the sense that in the land of the blind the one-eyed is king. Dufty evidently gave Garcia his standard line: he was still in information-gathering mode and hasn't decided how he'll vote on the legislation:

And while I know he's meeting with a number of city officials this week to gather as much information on the potential problems with the proposed changes to the sanctuary policy, they have already been spelled out by the board's own legal expert[the City Attorney].

Dufty spent a whole year dithering about whether to support locating a Trader Joes on upper Market Street before coming out against the proposal.

He waffled even longer on UC's massive housing project proposed for the old extension site and finally recused himself after buying a house on nearby Waller Street. But UC made its original proposal for the site way back in 2004, long before Dufty had an official excuse for not taking a position on a development that's much too big for the area---450 units, 1,000 more people in an already densely-populated area---not to mention the fact that the project is going to trash a state and national landmark.

I suspect that Dufty knew early on that UC's slimy appeal to get the support of the gaysin the neighborhood included 80 units for gay seniors in the project, as if that made it okay for City Hall to betray the interests of the city by giving this awful project a green light.

Dufty joined his "progressive" colleagues on the Board of Supervisors in endorsing the Bicycle Coalition's relentless campaign to redesign city streets on behalf of that small minority with the effective political lobby. He was particularly obnoxious during the committee meeting he chaired that took away most of the metered parking spaces between Van Ness and Octavia Blvd. to make bike lanes, in spite of significant opposition from local merchants. Insult to injury, Dufty, with Supervisors Ma and Mirkarimi, rushed it through the process at the request of the mayor to get it done before Bike to Work Day. During that meeting, as neighborhood merchants looked on with dismay, Dufty even promised to ride in the Bike to Work Day parade. Now, that's leadership!

Garcia may think Dufty is a "moderate," but he should ask him why he voted with the progressives for a Board of Supervisors' resolution asking for a new trial for cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal (Only Supervisors Elsbernd and Ma voted against the resolution).

Dufty ran with the progressive lemmings in opposing JROTC in the city's schools.

Dufty is not a leader; he's a human windsock, an any-way-the-wind-blows politician.

Yeah, how dare Dufty oppose a supermarket going into a small neighborhood that would create a traffic nightmare. Instead that loser negotiated a deal to get WaMu into the Castro instead and even got them to donate money to the community.

The point isn't that he eventually opposed locating a Trader Joes on upper Market Street but that it took him a whole year to make that sensible decision. Given the ongoing parking problems caused by the Trader Joes at Geary and Masonic, that should have been a much easier call. Ditto on UC. Dufty is a waffler, who hates to make tough decisions, and the decisions he does make are based on whichever way the wind is blowing.

Setting aside housing units just for gays, by the way, probably is illegal, not that that bothers the PC, political identity folks.

Do we have to have one or the other? Not taking a position on UC's hijacking of the extension property until years after UC first made the proposal---and then recusing yourself---is pretty poor leadership. UC's proposal now calls for 450 housing units on the property---which is actually in Dufty's district---a huge development that will bring another 1,000 people and a lot of traffic into the area and impact that whole part of town. UC has had that property tax-free from the city only because of its education "mission." Now Dufty et al---with Mirkarimi taking the lead on the surrender to UC, of course---are going to let them take property that's been zoned for "public use" for 150 years and turn it into a huge housing development that's going to trash that state and national landmark. Great leadership all around by our "progressive" city government!